TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - C. N. Prasad (Judicial Member) And Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) For the Revenue : Manjunatha Swamy For the Assesee : Anuj Kisnadwala ORDER C. N. Prasad (Judicial Member) These two appeals by the Revenue are preferred against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 09.1.2012 pertaining to assessment years 2008-09 2009-10. As common issue is involved in both these appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In both these appeals, the Revenue has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in determining the ALV of the property as fixed by the Municipal authorities. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso and determined the ALV. 6. We have perused the orders furnished before us in the case of the assessee and his wife and find that there is no material difference in the orders passed in earlier years and this year. No new material has come on record to suggest that the ALV of the vacant flats should not be fixed at some other value other than the Municipal value. There is no change in fact therefore, the contention of the Ld. DR that during this year there are materials to show that the ALV is more than the Municipal valuation may not be correct. We find from the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 26.11.2015 in ITA Nos. 2719/M/2013 and 2718/M/13 in assesee s own case that this issue has been decided in assessee s favour holding as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same complex showing a monthly rent of ₹ 17,000/- for the financial year 2010-11. The AO after reducing/indexing the average annual rent fees of 10% and applying the same for AY 2006-07, he worked out monthly rent of ₹ 10,550/- for each flat and determined the deemed ALV at ₹ 5,06,400/- in terms of section 23(1)(a). This action of the AO has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that nowhere AO has referred to any material that annual rental value shown by the assessee is not correct. ALV as per Municipal ratable value is an accepted method of valuation at least in cases of vacant premises. As pointed out by ld. counsel Tribunal in series of decisions in Group cases th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed u/s23(1)(a) of the Act would be municipal ratable value 4 Rametidevi Jain Mother 2005-06 2006-07 3268/11 3269/11 25.4.12 Vacant Hon ble ITAT held that amount to be taxed u/s23(1)(a) of the Act would be municipal ratable value Not only in the aforesaid cases, but now Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography, reported in [2014] 368 ITR 330 has upheld that Municipal ratable value can be adopted for determining the ALV u/s 23(1)(a). The Hon ble High Court held that for disturbing the ALV or rent shown by the assessee, the AO must have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee relied on the rateable values of these properties. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the and rejected the computation of ALV of the said properties and held that a percentage of investment in the properties should reflect correct ALV. Accordingly, he quantified the ALVs and the cumulative ALV of the properties was taken at ₹ 1,65,51,632/- (Galas ALV is ₹ 3,94,508/- and ₹ 1,61,57,124/- is the ALV of other properties). Otherwise, assessee s computation in this regard worked out at ₹ 94,181/- ie., Galas rateable value is ₹ 5,880/- and other properties is ₹ 88,301/-. AO relied on the Inspector s report of comparable cases in this regard. Aggrieved with the same, assessee is in appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the copies of which are placed in the paper book of the asssessee. The Revenue has not demonstrated that the facts of the assessee s case are covered by the decisions cited in ground no.1 of the present appeal. Considering the binding nature of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Smitaben N Ambani (supra), we are of the opinion that the finding of the CIT (A) is an Order and it does not call for any interference on this issue. In any case, the percentage of investment in the impugned properties is no basis for arriving at the ALV of the properties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Respectfully following the said decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, we decide this issue in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
